Disciplinarity or interdisciplinarity?

(1)

Disciplinarity or interdisciplinarity?

An analysis of the organization of knowledge in an environmental and development

economics Master programme

Saundre Lasca McConney

Master Thesis

Department of Educational Research UNIVERSITETET I OSLO

Autumn 2012

(2)

II

(3)

III

(4)

IV

Disciplinarity or interdisciplinarity? An

analysis of the organization of knowledge in an environmental and development

economics Master programme

(5)

V

Disciplinarity or interdisciplinarity? An analysis of the organization of knowledge in an environmental and development economics Master programme

Saundre Lasca McConney http://www.duo.uio.no/

Trykk: Reprosentralen, Universitetet i Oslo

(6)

VI

Abstract

This thesis has set out to find what characterizes the organization of knowledge in Master programmes which may present different knowledge fields in them. The popularity of

interdisciplinary academic programmes or programmes which have multiple knowledge fields in them has increased over the years in higher education, thereby encouraging and steering students to think and learn in ways that are inclusionary, rather than exclusionary, when it comes to academic knowledge. It has often been the case that academic programmes may bear titles or names which may appeal to the popularity of interdisciplinary knowledge, and,

thereby, present an impression that they offer different knowledge fields in them, but a closer look at their curricula may reveal that a single disciplinary field is emphasized over others.

This thesis sets out to investigate and uncover this discrepancy by looking at the way

knowledge is organized in what appears to be interdisciplinary academic programmes. It will also address how this discrepancy may affect student learning in higher education. By

applying five categories which comes from Stark and Lattuca’s (1997) concept of an academic plan, categories which relates the most to the selection and organization of

knowledge, as an analytical framework, this would allow for looking at this discrepancy more clearly, and thereby, identifying that which characterizes the way knowledge is organized in interdisciplinary programmes. These categories will be further explored by employing a perspective on disciplinary knowledge which derives from Becher (1994). I make a distinction that while I will be employing Becher’s (1994) perspective on disciplinary knowledge and I will be employing Stark and Lattuca’s (1997) perspective on curricular knowledge. Using this framework, this thesis will look at a particular programme, that is, an environmental and development economics Master programme, which appears to be

interdisciplinary when looking at its title.

Though, interdisciplinary programmes and their emerging popularity has some significance for the future of higher education curricula, the move towards blended knowledge fields in higher education curricula did not take place without some external and internal influences which have been affecting higher education curricula for some time. This thesis at first traces some external and internal developments which have led to an increase in interdisciplinary curricula in higher education. Thereafter, the thesis will bring up some perspectives on academic knowledge and the analytical framework that it uses to investigate the

characteristics of the organization of knowledge in interdisciplinary programmes. This thesis

(7)

VII will also provide a description of the case study that was used, as well as, an analysis based on Stark and Lattuca’s (1997) academic plan framework.

In terms of the findings of this study, it was found that even though the environmental and development economics Master programme initially seemed to present different fields of knowledge in its title, it was found that one field of knowledge was dominant in its curriculum and other areas of knowledge were subsumed under the logic of the dominant field. The field of knowledge that was found to be dominant in the curriculum is the discipline of economics. This is was found to essentially characterize the way knowledge had been selected and organized in this particular programme. It was also found that a single disciplinary culture, through its adherence to a specific method of inquiry, which the programme’s department adheres to, seemed to have defined the overall profile of the programme, and that methodologies and theoretical approaches from other disciplines which are mentioned in the curriculum did not seem to gain footing in the organization of

knowledge and educational activities of the programme.

(8)

VIII

(9)

IX

Acknowledgements

First and foremost I wish to thank my Heavenly Father for being so faithful and for always taking care of me. Thank you Lord for sustaining me and rescuing me all those times when I was in need. I would be nothing without my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, apart from Him I can do nothing. This thesis, and me being part of the HEEM study programme, was only made possible because of Him, therefore, I dedicate this thesis to the Lord.

To, Mom, Dad and my sister, Deslé. Thank you so much for your steadfast love and prayers.

Thank you Mom and Dad for making enormous sacrifices for me so that I could pursue my dream of studying further and abroad. There are insufficient words to express how grateful I am that the three of you are in my life. I also dedicate this work to you.

I owe much gratitude to my thesis supervisor Professor Monika Nerland. I could not have asked for a better supervisor. Her patience, support and guidance, and her very helpful and consistent feedback on my thesis have been invaluable to me and I am extremely grateful for her walking me through the whole process.

Many thanks and appreciation goes to my very good friends Katerina, Jitka and Runa, for being there for me and for helping me out when ever I needed help, for accommodating me on visits and for spending time with me. You are so precious. I thank Runa for the editing work that she has done on this thesis and for enabling it to be physically submitted. I really

appreciate it.

Thank you to my church family and cell group in Oslo and in Cape Town for their love, support and prayers. My most heartfelt thanks for standing in the gap for me in prayer, and, for the encouragement and love that you have shown to me. You are very close to my heart.

Many thanks to the HEEM programme administrative coordinators at Oslo University,

Tampere University and Aveiro University, for their very valuable administrative support and for responding so promptly when I needed help or had any questions about the HEEM study programme. I would also like to thank Lynne Josephson from the International Education Office at Oslo University for her kindness and very friendly service and for her assistance in helping me settle in as a first-time international student.

(10)

X

Additonally, I would also like to thank my HEEM classmates for enriching my learning experience in the programme through the interesting interactions we have had, both in and outside of the classroom.

A big, heartfelt thanks to you all.

(11)

XI

(12)

XII

1 Introduction

Higher education institutions today and their curricula are situated in a world of change, so asserts Barnett (2000) in his article on changing patterns in higher education curricula in the United Kingdom. It is not only Barnett (2000) who has made these observations, but another commentator, Bridges (2000), also claims that certain changes, specific trends and

developments have taken hold in higher education curricula, affecting the way knowledge in higher education institutions, particularly in universities, have traditionally been taught and organized. The way knowledge is organized or arranged through the medium of curriculum is the focal point of interest for this thesis. The reason for this point of interest is based on a much broader interest in the area of disciplinary knowledge fields, specifically, how internal structures of various disciplines actually show up in the curriculum. While this interest

prevails, I have also been curious about the way knowledge is arranged in a curriculum which may promote more than one disciplinary perspective in its content. It seems that knowledge organization and arrangement in a blended knowledge curriculum may take on a different form or may play out differently to that of a curriculum which only has one disciplinary perspective in it. In other words, it may be possible that there may be a clash or a conundrum on which perspective should be emphasized the most, or, there could be a challenge in presenting each perspective equally in an academic programme. Also, the names or titles of Master programmes often provide clues on which disciplinary perspectives will be presented in an academic programme. This may mean that the title of the programme may also provide a clue on the way knowledge in the programme is organized. With this in mind, I began to question if the name of a programme truly reflects that which is in the curriculum. One Master programme, in particular, caught my attention in this regard. It was a programme which featured at least three disciplinary fields in its title, but was administered by one academic department at a university. The programme that was of interest to this study is entitled the Environmental and Development Economics programme or EDEC, for short. This had caught my attention because it struck me that one department who is responsible for putting together its curriculum, would, thereby, also be responsible for making sure that each disciplinary field features in the curriculum. From here, I began to inquire how this particular department managed to organize the curriculum in such a way as to present all three

disciplinary fields. Thus, this inquiry has prompted me to explore the area or theme of the organization of knowledge in the curricula of Master programmes, particularly programmes

(16)

2

which by their titles alone would indicate that they are interdisciplinary or have more than one discipline at work in their curricula. Based on this, I bring forth one specific research question in this thesis which I believe may help to shed some light on my curiosities about the

organization of knowledge in curricula. The research question that I put forward for this study is what characterizes the organization of knowledge in the Environmental and Development Economics Master programme? Subsequent to the investigation of this inquiry, I will also consider and briefly discuss at the end of this thesis, the possible implications this may have for student learning.

In addressing my research question, I hope to unearth the possible characteristics of a

programme which at first glance seem to incorporate different knowledge fields in it. Also, by doing so, this may provide some insight into what kinds of knowledge students are expected to learn and the purposes for them learning these kinds of knowledge. Donald (2009)

comments that when we examine study programmes more closely we are able to see what students are expected to learn. This means that the way knowledge has been organized in a curriculum may tell us about what students are expected to learn. By addressing the research question, it may help to bring together a possible link between organization of knowledge and student learning.

While the link between the organization of knowledge in higher education curricula and student learning may solely be a matter for curriculum studies, this is not separated from the broader context of higher education, a context which has been experiencing constant change for quite some time. This chapter will at first spend some time discussing some of the broader changes which have affected the way higher education curricula has been shaped since the late twentieth century and how these changes played a part in having more blended

knowledge fields feature in higher education study programmes today.

Even though while it may be useful to note the trends and developments which may have affected higher education curricula, the story would render incomplete if theories on the nature of academic knowledge were not included in the discussion, but this will be the task of the second chapter of this thesis. Chapter two will delve deeper into existing theories on what knowledge looks like in academic settings, such as is found in the university. Chapter two will also further discuss existing perspectives on higher education curricula, as well as the analytical framework which the thesis uses to describe and analyze the particular curriculum of the Environmental and Development Economics Master programme. From here, chapter

(17)

3 three will set out to explain the research methodology that was used in this study and the practicalities of the research process involved. Thereafter, chapter four will go on to describe the EDEC programme in detail. Continuing on from here, chapter five will provide a more in- depth analysis of the programme and its disciplinary or interdisciplinary makeup. Chapter six will provide a final discussion on the findings of this study, and finally, the last chapter will put forward the conclusion of this thesis. Seeing that the schema for thesis’ chapters has been presented, I now proceed to the discussion on the various changes which have affected curricula in higher education.

1.1 A changing context for higher education curricula

1.1.1 Knowledge economy, globalization and Mode 2

Contemporary life at present is predominantly organized around knowledge because it is believed that more and new knowledge is needed to solve various and growing problems in our world today. Some theorists argue that knowledge has taken such central place in our modern society today that it has become the basis of our economy and social action (Drucker, as cited in Stehr, 1994, p. 5). Therefore, great emphasis has been placed on knowledge

creation and knowledge production, especially in the economic sphere. It is for this reason that the term ‘knowledge economy’ was coined to describe the way knowledge has become a marked feature in economic life. The OECD’s definition of the knowledge economy (as cited in Barrow, Didou-Aupetit & Mallea, 2003, p. 3) is when knowledge, rather than raw

materials, fixed capital or managerial skills, makes up a larger proportion of productive capacity in an economy. According to Barrow, Didou-Aupetit & Mallea (2003), the knowledge economy has emerged because of developments in information and

communication technologies. These technological developments have enabled the world to become a smaller place, in that, communication, information, manufactured goods and financial capital is able to move from one site to another in a very quick period of time, without any constraints posed by national or regional boundaries (Barrow, Didou-Aupetit &

Mallea, 2003). Scott (1998) puts forward that there has been a conceptual and technological change in the way time and space is configured, for it has now become possible for a lesser divide to exist between the local and the global. According to Barrow, Didou-Aupetit &

(18)

4

Mallea (2003), the term which best encapsulates these acute changes and trends is

‘globalization’.

Globalization, which has been rapidly spread by modern technology, had made its way into the economic, social, cultural and political spheres worldwide in a way that crosses the traditional boundaries of nation-states (Altbach, 2004; Barrow, Didou-Aupetit & Mallea, 2003). Barrow, Didou-Aupetit & Mallea (2003) claim that it was precisely because of the drive to produce new technologies to boost economic growth in developed economies, that so much emphasis and focus have been placed on the use of knowledge in the modern economy.

According to Barrow, Didou-Aupetit & Mallea (2003), the development of the theory on human capital, one of the relatively new theories on economic growth, had helped to push knowledge to the forefront of being one of the most desirable needs for the labour market.

Barrow, Didou-Aupetit & Mallea (2003, p. 3) defines human capital as “the knowledge that individuals acquire during their lifetime and use to produce goods, services, or ideas in market or non-market circumstances”. Human capital theory suggests that it is human capital, or the knowledge that is embodied in those found in the labour market, that would enable the development of new technologies which would then result in sustainable economic growth (Ibid). It is for this reason that much attention has been placed on higher education today.

Altbach (2004) and Altbach and Teichler (2001) claim that the pivotal emphasis placed on the knowledge economy in the twenty-first century have caused much attention to turn towards higher education. They put forward that higher education institutions, universities in

particular, “provide the basic research that enables innovation to place. They are also the source of training for the personnel required for the knowledge-and-service-based industries of the new century. All of this takes place in a global framework” (Altbach & Teichler, 2001, p. 5). In other words, higher education institutions, namely universities, are seen as being responsible for providing curricula that would not only educate people to carry out knowledge-intensive work, but would enable graduates to generate new knowledge in a variety of contexts. This means that universities now have a responsibility to design and administer curricula which would teach students to do just that, and, this may involve having curricula present multiple knowledge perspectives. Therefore, there has been much interest generated lately in developing interdisciplinary curricula in higher education. By developing such curricula, higher education institutions seem to have responded to these global changes.

In a knowledge-intensive, global economy, universities have had to focus on designing curricula that would promote skills that would enable knowledge creation and innovation,

(19)

5 and, it is believed that blended knowledge curricula would teach students how to work with and combine different knowledge fields, and this would, therefore, enhance innovative and creative skills in a knowledge-intensive environment. Even though the knowledge economy is looking to universities as the producers of new knowledge, and universities have responded by producing interdisciplinary or blended knowledge curricula, the perception of universities being primary knowledge producers has been challenged by some commentators. This

challenge has particularly expressed itself in an alternative theory which has been put forward by Gibbons et al. (1994).

Challenging the idea of universities being primary knowledge producers, Gibbons (1993) and his colleagues claim that there has been a break from traditional academic knowledge, that is, disciplinary knowledge, which has come from universities. They refer to traditional academic knowledge as Mode 1 knowledge (Ibid). They put forward that a new type of knowledge production has emerged and has been emerging at multiple sites, and this type of knowledge is used specifically for application and problem-solving in different contexts which are particularly found in the workplace (Ibid). This kind of knowledge production tends to place more emphasis on blending knowledge from different fields, in other words, it focuses more on interdisciplinary knowledge. They refer to this new type of knowledge production as Mode 2 knowledge (Gibbons et al., 1994; Barnett, 2000). According to Gibbons (1994) and his colleagues, the latter form of knowledge has come about in the conditions that were set by the changes that were brought on by the rise of the knowledge economy and globalization. The role of the university as an autonomous, primary knowledge producer has been contradicted by Gibbons et al’s (1994) Mode 2 paradigm.

In light of the Mode 2 theory and the subsequent changes brought on by the knowledge economy and globalization, universities have been challenged to rethink the way knowledge has traditionally been produced and this means that universities have been challenged to rethink the way curricula have always been structured and put together. In the knowledge economy it could be said that Mode 1 has been called to show a Mode 2 character to it (Gibbons et al., 1994; Barnett, 2000). So, in order for universities to heed this call,

universities have been required to adapt in specific ways so that they can deliver the type of education that aligns itself with the needs of the knowledge economy. Scott (2000, p. 8) explains that in the spirit of the knowledge economy and Mode 2, the implications of these have brought higher education to the point that “new subjects, new curricula, new teaching

(20)

6

(and learning) technologies, and new conceptions of science and knowledge into, and through the University”. This means that the university has had to find new ways of creating new subjects and new type of curricula, incorporating these with new learning and teaching technologies. Not only this, but new subjects have constantly been introduced in university curricula, subjects which are more geared towards vocational relevance, that is, more geared towards Mode 2, than intellectual interest (Scott, 1998). To achieve this, universities have set out to combine different fields of knowledge, that is, they have set out to incorporate more than one discipline into various curricula, resulting in what is known to be interdisciplinary programmes. Barnett (2000) comments that new subjects may be interdisciplinary in nature so that they can respond to the vocational needs of prospective graduates and the knowledge economy. One of the possible reasons why some in the higher education field believe interdisciplinary programmes to be the answer to various vocational needs is that blended knowledge, or, what Klein (1996) and Barnett (2000) would call “hybridity”, “creates an ever- expanding obligation to learn the techniques and concepts of many disciplines” (Klein, 1996, p. 57). This means that students learning an interdisciplinary curricula would be placed in a position where they would be ever learning different methods and concepts from other disciplines, and this would be considered useful for problem-solving and knowledge

application in various contexts because they would mostly likely be using more than one field of knowledge which they would have obtained from an interdisciplinary curricula. With this in mind, higher education institutions are somewhat pressured to show an element of what Barnett (2000) calls, ‘performity’ in their curricula, where greater emphasis is placed on the application of knowledge and the practical usefulness of knowledge in problem-solving and performing certain tasks (Ibid). In other words, universities are now required to show an element of Mode 2 in their curricula. Therefore, higher education today has adopted a more performance or application-based approach to curricula (Ibid). Some authors, along with Scott (1998, 2000) hold the view that the increased emphasis on ‘performity’ has caused the

traditional discipline-based curriculum to be reformed and transformed to a notable extent (Bridges, 2000; Muller, 2009; Ensor, 2004). As a result of this reform, contemporary higher education curricula have been called to place greater emphasis on connectedness and coherence in knowledge so that knowledge can be practically applied to various real-life contexts (Valero, Ravn & Skovmose, 2009). Hence, there has been a push towards developing programmes which have hybrid combinations of knowledge in them (Ensor, 2004; Klein,

(21)

7 1996). Barnett (2000) explains the following changes that have resulted in study programmes being increasingly hybridized in terms of their knowledge domains. He comments that,

The arrival of mass higher education, the lowering of unit of resource, the desire of the state to move curricula in the direction of enterprise, the increased pull of the labour market, the bargaining that students may come to exert on their curricula, the greater interest of the professions in their educational functions: all these developments are society-wide in their manifestations. Some institutions and some knowledge fields will be able to resist changing to some extent but it is unlikely that any pool of purity will remain (Barnett, p. 260).

Barnett (2000) makes the assertion that every curriculum in higher education will display some form of hybridity in them. This breaks with the tradition of discipline-specific

programmes (Ensor, 2004; Klein, 1990; Klein, 1996). Barnett (2000) predicts that discipline purity in contemporary higher education curricula will be increasingly rare. The extent to which this happens, in other words, the extent to which various curricula will show hybridity will vary from discipline to discipline and from institution to institution because there may be some disciplinary factors which influence the way hybridity takes place in a curriculum (Barnett, 2000). For, Klein (1996, p. 57) claims that when it comes to the planning, designing and structuring of interdisciplinary curricula, “in practice, though, selected cuts are made”.

This means that there may be one disciplinary knowledge structure that is more presented than the other(s). For, she claims further that, “even interdisciplinary knowledge is partial knowledge” (Ibid). So, in interdisciplinary programmes it may most likely be a case that one discipline dominates or is put forward more than another. The motive for interdisciplinary curricula may be to strive for more connectedness and coherence in knowledge, but a possible consequence, may be, an unavoidable one, one could see happening here is the issue of disciplinary dominance in interdisciplinary curricula. The question of which disciplines dominate in an interdisciplinary curriculum may have some bearing on student learning in higher education, especially in terms of the patterns of thinking and problem-solving that students are ultimately learning. Whether they are learning to approach problems and generate knowledge using different techniques and methods from different knowledge fields or

whether they end up learning techniques and methods which are ultimately disciplinary, disciplinary dominance may result in them taking a singular direction when it comes to working with and applying knowledge in various workplace contexts. This may end up

(22)

8

undermining the very outcome that is intended for interdisciplinary learning, which is “the ability to change perspectives, to synthesize and integrate knowledge, and to cope with complexity” (Spelt, Biemans, Tobi, Luning & Mulder, 2009, p. 366). By examining a programme that could be seen as interdisciplinary at first glance, like the one which will be described and analyzed in this thesis, it will provide an opportunity to see if Klein’s (1996) view here is the case for this particular programme and many others like it.

Though, the above discussion on the rise of interdisciplinary curricular in higher education provides the main platform from which to begin to understand the way interdisciplinarity made its way into higher education curricula, there have also been other changes which affected higher education curricula when it comes to the rise of interdisciplinary programmes.

These changes, however, seemed to have played a more minor role in the rise of

interdisciplinarity in curricula, for they may not have been directly responsible for causing interdisciplinarity to appear in higher education curricula, but they may have made it easier for curricula to be adapted in ways which would allow interdisciplinarity to appear more easily in higher education curricula. These will now be discussed in the sections that follow.

1.1.2 Diversification, modularization and ‘creditization’ of higher education curricula

Scott (1998) and Trow (1970) bring to the fore that the latter half of the twentieth century had seen an exponential number of students enter higher education institutions, especially in the developed world. Scott (1998) puts forward that a large student population has brought with it a diverse student population. This means that higher education now has to cater for students of different ages and backgrounds, and, who have different academic abilities and academic achievements. According to Young & Gamble (2006), a diversified student population also means that the way university had traditionally designed and administered curricula also had to change. Scott (1998, p. 115) remarks that, in the wake of a diversified student population,

“the old informality that once marked the university curriculum can no longer be tolerated”.

He also notes further that because of the diversity of students in higher education today, students are now faced with much more variety of careers and a much smaller number of students are set on following an academic career path (Ibid). Higher education curricula, therefore, have to accommodate the needs of a growing and diverse student population, as well as, meeting the needs of the labour market in the knowledge economy (Ibid). Thus,

(23)

9 higher education study programmes since the latter half of the twentieth century had to

become more diverse in terms of what they offer in terms of their subject matter and in terms of students’ aspirations and career prospects (Scott, 1998; Meek, 2000; Dill & Teixeira, 2000). Higher education institutions, therefore, have moved towards designing more

interdisciplinary programmes so that they could cater to this need of diversification, and, as a result, students have been presented with more variety of options when it comes to

undertaking a study programme. However, with diversified programmes catering towards a large student population, higher education institutions were subsequently faced with the dilemma of harmonizing programmes so that it would be made easier for a diverse population of students to be able to transfer their qualifications through multiple contexts. Universities and higher education institutions needed a curriculum model that would facilitate portability and exchangeability in their academic programmes (Ensor, 2004). In the section that follows, it will be shown how modularization as a model for exchangeability and portability in higher education curricula has aided the emergence of interdisciplinarity in curricula.

In 1999 the Bologna Declaration was a policy framework that was put forward for the purpose of integrating and harmonizing academic frameworks and standards in the Europe (The Bologna Process, 2011; Cerych, 2002; The Bologna Declaration, 1999, Altbach, 2004;

Altbach & Knight, 2007). Through the Bologna process, the process by which the Bologna declaration was to be fulfilled, policy makers aimed to create an integrated higher education region in Europe, now known as the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), through the standardization of curricular objectives and frameworks which have been stipulated in the declaration (Cerych, 2002; History, 2010; Karseth, 2006). The Bologna framework, since its inception, has served as a model for governing higher education curricula in the EHEA through its stipulated learning outcomes and its European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), whereby students earn credit points on completion of courses and programmes at higher education institutions, which they then could transfer to other higher education institutions in the EHEA without undertaking extensive and additional courses to meet certain degree requirements (ECTS users guide, 2009; European Credit Transfer, 2011; The Bologna

Declaration, 1999). This meant that under the Bologna framework, higher education curricula had experienced a restructuring process that has never been seen before. Courses in academic programmes which were now made up of modules that adhered to Bologna’s ECTS, could be exchanged, mixed and matched without any obstacles in the way of obtaining academic qualifications (Ensor, 2004; Bridges, 2000). Ensor (2004) puts forward that the discourse of

(24)

10

credit transfer allows students to withdraw courses or modules and replace them with courses or modules which may come from different disciplines, depending on the rules and

obligations stipulated for their particular programme. This means that interdisciplinary curricula could now be more easily created in study programmes. According to Ensor (2004) the introduction of the modularized curriculum has caused a shift from the traditional

discipline-oriented curriculum, which had year-long discipline-based courses in them, to courses which come from different knowledge fields and are broken up into smaller modules, and completed over a shorter period of time.

The Bologna framework through its modularized structure and ECTS has for the first time caused a significant change in the way knowledge had been traditionally organized in curricula. Knowledge in higher education curricula has now become ‘creditized’ and has taken on a modularized appearance. According to Bridges (2000) these specific changes has had certain implications on the way traditional patterns of learning and knowledge domains have taken place in higher education. A further discussion on these implications will be held in the following section.

1.1.3 Modularization: a deconstruction of knowledge

Bridges (2000) claims that the modularization of curricula has permitted the deconstruction of traditional patterns of learning in higher education in such a way, that it has allowed for the deconstruction of traditional disciplinary fields as acceptable and recognizable units of academic knowledge. He explains that modularization has allowed for the “taking apart of traditional subjects as epistemological units of study” (Bridges, 2000, p. 42). This kind of deconstructing work suggests that parts of knowledge, in principle, may be imported from and exported to other contexts and blended in to suit the context that it is placed in. Young &

Muller (2010, p. 18) refer to this as “de-differentiation of knowledge”, in other words, the deconstruction of knowledge involves the breaking down of boundaries which traditionally kept knowledge domains separate. For they put forward that under modularization, there is a

“steady weakening of boundaries” and with that “a de-differentiation of knowledge and institutions” (Ibid). The weakening of boundaries, the de-differentiation of knowledge, and the import and export of knowledge, all describe perfect conditions for interdisciplinarity and interdisciplinary learning. This, therefore, means that modularized curricula favour and promote interdisciplinary knowledge in higher education curricula because students are given

(25)

11 more freedom to select modules and courses from a range of disciplines which may be in line with their own interests and objectives (Muller, 2005). According to Ensor (2004, p. 344),

“interdisciplinarity is facilitated by allowing students to select from a range of modules within different disciplines…” She also claims that the modularization model of curriculum allows

“students to create their own curriculum packages” (Ensor, 2004, p. 344). Becher and Trowler (2001, p. 10) claim that by presenting knowledge in “module-sized chunks”, knowledge can be commodified and packaged a certain way. Modularization makes it possible for students to create their own curriculum packages because of the exchangeable and portable nature of the courses with the credit points system attached to it. In a modularized curriculum, students can be seen as agents in creating interdisciplinary curricula, and, because of the role of student agency in a modularized curriculum, this particular type of curriculum has a more student- centered approach (Bridges, 2000). This differs remarkably from the more traditional disciplinary model of curriculum, where the curriculum is based exclusively on the

knowledge structure of a particular discipline and where the subject matter is dominated by a specific discipline (Ensor, 2004). While a modularized curriculum aims to deconstruct

traditional academic knowledge, it also aims for students to construct their own knowledge. It can therefore be understood that the emergence of interdisciplinary programmes has played a part in the deconstruction of academic knowledge. Even though it has been useful to delve into the causes for the emergence of interdisciplinary programmes in higher education, it would also be deemed useful for this discussion to bring forth a brief history of

interdisciplinary programmes and the course (pardon the pun) they took in higher education since their inception.

1.1.4 A brief history of interdisciplinary programmes

Kreber (2009) claims that learning and teaching in higher education have been characterized by disciplines since the founding of the first universities in the medieval era. This means that curricula in higher education have traditionally been characterized along disciplinary lines, but Klein (1996, 1990) notes that interdisciplinary programmes, as we know it, have made an appearance as early as the late 1960s in the United States, though these were in their infancy stages and were found to be largely on the periphery in higher education. Political and social reforms that were occurring in the 1960s and early 1970s in the United States, had resulted in calls for universities to respond appropriately to these by initiating research into these areas, thereby creating curricula which would incorporate studies of these areas (Klein, 1990). Thus,

(26)

12

many of their interdisciplinary programmes which were developed at the time, though they were in their experimental stage, offered alternatives to that which was being studied in the traditional disciplinary curriculum, a curriculum which had been typical for higher education for so long (Ibid). It is for this reason that this particular period of time has been widely believed to be the watershed era for interdisciplinary curricula in higher education (Klein, 1990). However, Klein (1990, 1996) makes the point that these interdisciplinary programmes came about as a result of an earlier curriculum movement which took place in the 1930s and 1940s, a movement which attempted to promote an interdisciplinary approach between two or more fields of study, examples of these early interdisciplinary areas which Klein (1990, 1996) names are Area studies, American studies and Environmental studies. Though, these

particular areas of study really did take off only from the 1960s onwards, but, due to their peripheral position in higher education at the time, these programmes were administered by only a few faculty members and economic recessions which had occurred in the late 1970s and in the 1980s had caused many of these programmes to end (Ibid). However, much later on, a renewed interest in interdisciplinary programmes had shown itself through an

introduction of programmes, such as Gender and Women studies, and subsequent

programmes like these (Klein, 1996). By this time, “new hybrid fields of knowledge” had come to the fore, according to Klein (1996, p. 32). She goes on to comment on the state of interdisciplinary curricula in contemporary higher education and claims that the crossing of disciplinary boundaries has now become a part of the knowledge production process, it has, therefore, moved out of the periphery and has now become more mainstream (Klein, 1996).

It can be said that in the contexts of the knowledge economy and Mode 2, together with the move towards diversification, and the modularization and creditization of higher education curricula, interdisciplinary programmes have increased remarkably in higher education. This has led to an increase in the blending of various knowledge structures in higher education curricula. This means that the way knowledge has traditionally been organized in curricula may have somewhat changed, notably, knowledge that used to be organized according to clear, straight-forward disciplinary boundaries, now is experiencing organization along boundaries that may be more murky and vague, causing the organization of knowledge in interdisciplinary programmes to be a bit more complex. Along with this, the perspective of knowledge in academic settings may have changed from a strictly disciplinary perspective to a perspective which includes the view that disciplinary fields can be blended and combined, that disciplinary boundaries are flexible and changeable. However, even if many researchers

(27)

13 point to a general rise in interdisciplinary programmes and more flexible disciplinary

boundaries, it may also be the case that disciplinary logics still tend to dominate the

organization of knowledge in many programmes. From here, this thesis will go on to discuss some perspectives on knowledge in academic settings in the next chapter.

(28)

14

2 Theoretical perspectives and analytical framework

2.1 Perspectives on academic knowledge

Knowledge in higher education can be seen as being organized into various knowledge groupings, or, as Clark (1983, p. 16) puts it, “bundles” or “bodies” of knowledge. Academic knowledge is specialized and segmented into different groupings or bundles according to their own logic in terms of the way their knowledge is accumulated and organized. These bundles of knowledge are referred to as disciplines and they are “the dominant force in the working lives of academics” (Clark, 1983, p. 30). This means that much of the work which academics do revolves around their respective disciplines (Clark, 1983; Becher & Trowler, 2001).

However, according to some theorists, it is not only the actual knowledge itself which may define disciplines, but, also what and who is associated with them may also appear as part of their definition. This means that for some of these theorists, disciplines by definition, may also include the individuals and communities which may be associated with them (Becher &

Trowler, 2001). For theorists who hold this position, disciplines have a social element associated with them. It is at this point that the social perspective on disciplines will be discussed in the next section.

2.1.1 Disciplinary knowledge: a social perspective

Messer-Davidow (1993) and her colleagues see disciplines and disciplinary knowledge through a Foucaltian lens. They assert that disciplinary knowledge, or, as they put it,

“boundary work”, is not only about the composition and coherence of ideas, but it also involves “elements of power” (Messer-Davidow, Shumway & Sylvan, 1993, p. 4). In their work, they analyze disciplines using a genealogical approach, that is, they try to explain disciplines from a historical point of view (Messer-Davidow, Shumway & Sylvan, 1993).

They assert that knowledge and power are associated with one another, in that they claim that knowledge is a product of power (Ibid). Lenoir (1993) makes a similar claim by putting forward the view that disciplines help to establish relationships between practitioners’ and particular institutions and economic contexts. He goes on to claim that disciplines function as demarcators of boundaries between experts and novices, thus creating a hierarchy between the

(29)

15 two (Lenoir, 1993). Lenoir’s (1993) position along with that of Messer-Davidow, Shumway and Sylvan (1993) reflects the Foucaltian view of power relations. However, Lenoir (1993) does not see power in this context as being a negative, oppressive force, but as a positive one which possesses productive capacities. For he claims that, “disciplines are dynamic structures for assembling, channeling, and replicating the social and technical practices essential to the functioning of the political economy and the system of power relations that actualize it”

(Lenoir, 1993, p. 72). Lenoir’s (1993) views here not only reflect the position that disciplines are made up of power relations, but, most importantly, that disciplines are made up of social relations and that knowledge is a social construction. He is not the only one who puts forward that disciplinary knowledge is a social construction, but another theorist, Knorr-Cetina (1981) puts forward this position as well.

Knorr-Cetina (1981) put forward, much like Lenoir (1993), that knowledge is a social construction. The difference is that Knorr-Cetina (1981) is referring more too scientific knowledge. However, she goes a step further and describes disciplines as “knowledge cultures” (Knorr Cetina, 1999, p. 2). She puts forward in her view that disciplines are essentially epistemic communities which consists of groupings of specialists who are separated from other experts by institutional boundaries, boundaries which are deeply

entrenched in educational fields, research organizations, professional and career paths, as well as, in other general systems of classification (Knorr Cetina, 2009). These groupings of

specialists, Knorr Cetina (2009, p. 2) explains, follow certain “cultural specificities which emerge and thrive when domains of social life become separated from one another, or when they curl up upon themselves”. Other theorists, such as Becher (1981), Becher and Trowler (2001), Lamont (2009), Kreber (2009) and Donald (2009) all see disciplines as social communities, and, that the knowledge and the social aspect of disciplines are inseparable (Becher & Trowler, 2001). Kreber (2009, p. 16), for one, sees disciplines as being “certain ways of thinking, procedures and practices that are characteristic of its community”. Becher and Trowler (2001) sees disciplines as academic tribes and territories, in other words, as specialized communities which have specific identities that are often expressed in the use of professional language and literature which are peculiar to their specific discipline. It seems that the social perspective of disciplines can be regarded as valid because there seems to be a consensus amongst academics on what constitutes as knowledge in a discipline. This means that there is most likely a consensus about the method of inquiry, concepts, logical structure and problems pertaining to a discipline (Lodahl and Gordon, as cited in Muller, 2009). This

(30)

16

consensus between academics seems to show “social connectedness” amongst scholars, according to Muller (2009). This also shows that disciplines are marked by the way they are socially organized apart from the way their knowledge is organized. For many of these authors, the organization of disciplines takes place two-fold, the social and the

epistemological, both are believed to be inseparable from one another. Price’s study (as cited in Becher, 1994) indicates that it is necessary to see disciplines through this two-fold view of organization, because it allows for a fuller understanding of what disciplines are. From a teaching and learning point of view, this view also seems useful according to Donald (2009), because, she claims that there is a need to also see disciplines as social systems if we are to understand learning and teaching in interdisciplinary as well as disciplinary contexts. While this may undeniably be the case with disciplines, Donald (1983, p. 31) puts forward that even though the primary function of the university is the growth of knowledge, she claims that “we know very little about how knowledge is organized and structured”. Donald’s (1983) claim here is indicative of a need to explore the organization of knowledge more extensively.

Young and Muller (2010) assert that academic knowledge is structured and different kinds of knowledge fields are structured differently in terms of their internal composition, that is, in terms of their theoretical and logical composition. Young and Muller’s (2010) assertion indicates an epistemological view of disciplines, not a social one. In the following section, I will present an epistemological perspective on disciplinary knowledge as put forward by some authors.

2.1.2 Disciplinary knowledge: an epistemological perspective

One of the first authors to explain disciplinary knowledge from an epistemological point of view is Becher (1994). Becher’s (1994) take on disciplines involves their classification based on four categories, which are hard, soft, pure and applied (Becher, 1994). These four

categories are also found in the work of Neumann, Parry and Becher (2002) and are based on the earlier work of two other theorists, Biglan (1973) and Kolb (1981). His categorization of disciplinary knowledge goes as follows:

The first disciplinary category in his classification system is the hard-pure disciplines, of which many of the physical and natural sciences, such as chemistry, physics and biology can be placed under this category (Becher, 1994; Neumann, Parry & Becher, 2002). Knowledge in these disciplines is cumulative, atomistic, has a tree-like structure, and is more

(31)

17 hierarchically shaped (Becher, 1994; Neumann, Parry & Becher, 2002; Donald, 1983).

Concepts in these kinds of disciplines are tightly structured and have more links in them because of their vertical structure (Donald, 1986, 1990). Disciplinary knowledge in the hard- pure category is more focused on universal truths and simplification. Hard-pure knowledge fields emphasize quantitative research methods and results (Becher, 1994; Neumann, Parry &

Becher, 2002). Knowledge communities in this category tend to be task-oriented, competitive and gregarious (Ibid). They tend to be more involved in collaborative work with other authors on publications and have a high publication rate (Ibid). Disciplines in the hard-pure category also tend to be politically well-organized (Ibid).

The second category in Becher’s (1994) system is the soft-pure disciplines. Here it is the social science disciplines, such as sociology and anthropology which best fits this category (Becher, 1994; Neumann, Parry & Becher, 2002). Knowledge in these disciplines tends to be reiterative, holistic or river-like in nature (Ibid). Disciplinary knowledge in this category show more interest in particulars or specific cases (Donald, 1983). Knowledge structures in the soft- pure disciplines appear more horizontal in shape compared to those found in hard-pure disciplines. Donald (1983) puts forward that the soft-pure knowledge structures often resemble a web-like structure, meaning, that there is often a cluster of concepts that are organized around one pivotal concept. Concepts also tend to be more loosely structured in the soft-pure disciplines. (Becher, 1994; Neumann, Parry & Becher, 2002). While this may be the case for the way concepts are arranged in soft-pure disciplines, their methods of inquiry emphasize an inclusion of qualitative data collection and often results in the interpretation of findings (Ibid). Disciplinary communities in soft, pure disciplines tend to be more

individualistic in their approach and therefore collaborate less with other authors on publications. Disciplines in this category also tend to have a low publication rate (Ibid).

The third of Becher’s (1994) categories, hard-applied, applies to the disciplines which are found in technical fields such as engineering. In this particular category knowledge is purposive and pragmatic, in that, know-how is based on hard, pure inquiry, but, the ultimate purpose of the knowledge is to master physical or natural environments and often results in products or techniques (Becher, 1994; Neumann, Parry & Becher, 2002). Knowledge

communities in these fields tend to be more entrepreneurial, cosmopolitan, role-oriented and are often controlled by professional values (Becher, 1994). Hard, applied knowledge tends to be officially recognized in patents rather than in publications (Ibid).

(32)

18

The fourth and the last of Becher’s (1994) categories refer to disciplinary knowledge that is mostly found in social science fields such as education. The soft-applied category applies to disciplinary knowledge that Becher (1994) considers to be more functional and ulitarian. Soft, applied knowledge is concerned with enhancing professional practice and is dependent upon knowledge that is often produced in soft, pure disciplines (Ibid). In soft, applied fields knowledge is accumulated through a reiterative process, whereby, knowledge that is

supported by theory is practically applied (Neumann, Parry & Becher, 2002). Knowledge in this category often results in protocols and procedures (Becher, 1994). Disciplinary

communities in soft, applied fields are more outward-looking, power-oriented and uncertain in status, and they tend to be dominated more by intellectual modes (Ibid). Consultancies seem to dominate publication rates in soft-applied disciplines (Ibid).

Considering the ways in which disciplines can be classified, as put forward by Becher’s (1994) categories above, these make it possible to see how disciplinary knowledge is able to be bundled in four distinct ways. Other scholars such as Lamont (2009, p. 54) put forward the view that distinct “epistemological styles” can be found in academic disciplines. In other words, there are specific ways of thinking, reasoning and building knowledge which can be found in disciplinary knowledge. Lamont (2009, p. 54) claims that there are “preferences for particular ways of understanding how to build knowledge as well as beliefs in the very possibility of proving those theories” when it comes to disciplines. These preferences or different epistemological styles may differ from discipline to discipline, but may be shown best by Becher’s (1994) classification system, namely, by his hard, soft, pure and applied categories. However, if disciplines can be identified in academic knowledge using these categories, then it is possible that Becher’s (1994) categories can also help to identify the ways in which knowledge in curricula may be organized. However, Becher’s (1994) categories are not the only categories which have been put forward to classify disciplines, another author, Donald (1986, 2002), also presents a classification system for academic disciplines and this will be discussed in the following section.

In her work on disciplinary knowledge, Donald (2002, p. 7) defines a discipline as “a body of knowledge with a reasonably logical taxonomy, a specialized vocabulary, an accepted body of theory, a systematic research strategy, and techniques for replication and validation”. Based on this definition, she brings forth four categories of her own as a means to differentiate between disciplines. The first category that Donald (1986, 2002) puts forward that disciplines

(33)

19 can be distinguished from each other by the concepts that they use. These are usually terms or phrases that are used to describe phenomena in a particular discipline (Donald, 2002). Donald (2002, p. 9) further describes concepts as “units of thought or elements of knowledge that allows us to organize experience”. These units of thought can be linked together to form whole ideas which may be peculiar to a particular discipline (Ibid, 2002). As units of thought form whole ideas, these ideas are often linked together in some way to form a particular pattern or structure of thinking. This leads us to the second of Donald’s (1986, 2002)

categories, logical structure. Logical structure refers to the way concepts have been arranged and organized to show relationships between components of knowledge, essentially, it refers to a type of thinking or reasoning schema in a discipline (Ibid). Added to those processes and schema of thinking, Donald (1986, 2002) puts forward that there are also operations which can describe these processes of thinking and these she calls methods and modes of inquiry.

Examples of this category which can be found in some disciplines may be critical thinking, problem solving, or the use of scientific method (Ibid, 2002). Lastly, the criteria and processes used to determine validity, is a category which shows the differences in the way different disciplines determine what counts as valid knowledge or not, in other words, it is the truth criteria in disciplinary fields (Donald, 1986, 2002). Donald (1986, 2002) defines these as the standards which are used to validate knowledge in disciplinary fields.

Apart from Donald’s (2002) and Becher’s (1994) categories providing criteria for identifying disciplines, their categories also show that disciplines may serve as lenses or ways to

understand certain phenomena. Kreber (2009, p. 16) among others echo this idea by claiming that disciplines “provide particular lenses or frameworks through which to explore,

understand and act upon the world”. Donald (2009, p. 48) seems to echoes this idea too, for she claims that, “disciplines provide examples of systematic scholarly inquiry, and therefore, serve as scaffolding for students in the process of exploring different ways of constructing meaning”. In other words, disciplines act as conceptual lenses with schemes of inquiry which enable students to construct meaning and perspective. In this sense, disciplines and student learning have a strong and direct connection in higher education. For, according to Donald (2009, p. 48), disciplines “determine the domain of knowledge, the theoretical or conceptual structures and the mode of inquiry that guide learning”. Thus, disciplines may act as

mechanisms for learning in higher education (Kreber, 2009). Kreber (2009) makes the observation that students in higher education are now required to be familiar with more than one mechanism for learning at a time. This means that students are now faced with academic

(34)

20

programmes which often have more than one discipline in a single programme. With this in mind, the next section attempts to explain the concept of interdisciplinary knowledge.

2.1.3 Interdisciplinary knowledge

Barnett (2000, p. 260), comments in his work on higher education curricula that study

programmes in higher education today are bound to have some form of “hybridity” or mixture of knowledge fields in them. This means that programmes that have a mixture of two or more disciplines in them are being presented in higher education curricula as the appropriate answer to dealing with the increasing complex nature of various problems and changes in our world today (Barnett, 2000). For, Spelt, Biemans, Tobi, Luning and Mulder (2009) claim that

interdisciplinary knowledge is able to address complex issues that are prevalent today because it is believed that crossing disciplinary boundaries enables a more extensive understanding of these issues. This belief has, hence, led to an increased interest in interdisciplinary knowledge in higher education curricula over the years (Spelt, et al., 2009). Barnett (2000) and Spelt et al. (2009) has not been the only ones pointing out the emergence of blended knowledge programmes in higher education curricula, but Klein (2000, p. 9) points to a similar idea and describes the mixture of disciplinary fields in academic programmes as a “hybridization” of knowledge. She puts forward that the term, hybridization, is a biological term which refers to the “formation of new animals, plants, or individuals and groups” (Ibid). She explains further that the product of hybridization results in a “hybrid” which “emerges from interaction or cross-breeding of heterogeneous elements” (Ibid). Therefore, in the context of academic knowledge, hybridization denotes a mixing or blending of relatively heterogeneous

disciplines. In other words, disciplines which can be identified as being separate from each other based on some degree of variation between them, a mixing or blending of these may result in a hybrid disciplinary field. Klein (1990, 1996, 2000) names the following hybrid fields as examples of hybridization in academic knowledge: environmental studies,

biotechnology, biochemistry, molecular biology, development studies, feminist studies, social psychology, political sociology, social anthropology, urban studies and so forth. Klein (2000) claims that academic knowledge which has a hybrid character to it indicates a sure sign of interdisciplinarity. According to this indication, interdisciplinarity involves a hybridization of more than one discipline (Ibid). Klein (1996, 2000) also refers to hybridization as the cross- fertilization of disciplines. Hybridization or cross-fertilization speaks of the integration, intermingling or a synthesis of knowledge (Klein, 1990; Spelt, et al., 2009). For Klein (1990,

(35)

21 p. 26), integration is “the combining of established categories, methods, and perspectives”.

This implies that the established categories, methods and perspectives already comes from established disciplines, therefore one can speak of interdisciplinarity as an integration between disciplines.

Klein (1996) claims that integration between disciplinary fields is possible because she puts forward that disciplines are not isolated units of knowledge but have permeable boundaries instead. She challenges the assumption held by some scholars that the boundaries of some disciplines are impermeable (Klein, 1996). Klein’s (1996) challenge may address the idea of disciplinary specialization as put forward by Becher (1994) and others. Klein (1996)

maintains that while disciplinary specialization and categories may be identified, these, she claims, are not absolute, fixed and immovable. She claims that disciplinary distinctions, such as hard and soft distinctions, are distributed unevenly and is not neatly contained in specific disciplinary domains (Klein, 1996). Klein (1996) makes the point that a disciplinary field which is considered to be hard may have some soft elements in it, and, conversely, a

disciplinary field which is considered to be soft in nature may have some harder elements in it. She puts forward that these discrepancies in various disciplines are made possible because permeable boundaries allow for ‘borrowing’ across disciplines (Klein, 1996, 2000). This means that interdisciplinarity in academic knowledge is much about disciplinary borrowing through boundaries which may be perceived as permeable. The discussion here has shown that there are many words which can be used to describe interdisciplinarity, ‘borrowing’ being one of them. I, on the other hand, tend to make use of the word ‘blending’, for while there may be a borrowing action in interdisciplinarity, there may be no intention of returning that which has been borrowed. Often, the blending of disciplinary fields would result in a new, hybrid knowledge field, such as those which have been given as examples earlier on, but, in terms of interdisciplinary study programmes, borrowing may sometimes be a more accurate term, because, in an interdisciplinary study programme there may be different disciplinary perspectives that are presented, but it does not necessarily lead to a brand new, hybrid field of knowledge. Either way, interdisciplinary programmes, and also interdisciplinary research, may be motivated by two main purposes, according to Klein (1990, 1996).

One motivation for interdisciplinarity in academic programmes and in research is what Klein (1996) refers to as ‘bridge building’. Bridge building happens when certain aspects are borrowed from one discipline and applied to a particular problem which may usually be

(36)

22

handled by another discipline (Klein, 1996). Klein (1990, 1996) asserts that bridge building is easier to implement for it occurs between already existing disciplines, and therefore, is a more common form of interdisciplinary action. It is often aimed at problem-solving, and, is thus, application-oriented. Bridge building, then is more performance-based, and therefore, focuses more on Barnett’s (2000) concept of performity (Spelt et al., 2009). The second motivation for interdisciplinarity, on the other hand, is ‘restructuring’ and Klein (1990) defines this to be a task of creating new, organizing concepts, methodologies and skills which are common to more than one discipline. But, whether the focus is on bridge building or restructuring, curriculum planners and designers may be left with the challenge of how best to incorporate knowledge from different disciplines in a way which would represent all the disciplines involved in an interdisciplinary programme in an equal manner. It may be for this reason that Klein (1996, p. 59) puts forward that “in a hybrid field, one discipline may also have a greater voice”. In other words, one discipline may be brought forth in a more dominant manner than another in a study programme. This may tell us much about the way interdisciplinary

knowledge is often organized in curricula. However, apart from this, one of the notable objectives of an interdisciplinary curriculum seems to be to foster unity between different knowledge fields so that students can cope with increasing uncertainty and complexity in the working world (Kreber, 2009, Barnett, 2000). There is no doubt that knowledge in

interdisciplinary curricula may be organized based on this exact objective, but if disciplinary dominance is more the case, this may mean that there is more of a disciplinary agenda to the organisation of knowledge in interdisciplinary curricula. From this point on, this thesis will now proceed to move on to discuss the organization of knowledge from a curricular

perspective.

2.2 Perspectives on higher education curricula

In considering what constitutes curricula in higher education, Barnett and Coate (2005, p. 3) claim that higher education curricula, particularly in the twenty-first century, should be based on three broad elements: “knowing”, “acting” and “being”, because, for Barnett (2000) appropriate responses to increasing complexities in the world today involve these three elements. Barnett (2000) claims that the reason for this is, that these three elements are found in human individuals when it comes to curricula. Barnett and Coate (2005) contend that a successful curriculum in the twenty-first century will pay equal attention to all three, allowing

(37)

23 for a balanced and coherent interaction between these by deliberately and directly engaging students with three elements in such a way as to foster sustained links between these. They also claim that these three elements should be clearly thought through when designing and planning curricula (Barnett & Coate, 2005). Here, Barnett and Coate (2005) put forward what curricula should contain in the twenty-first century, but they also put forward their view on how higher education curricula should function at any time. They claim that a higher

education curriculum functions in two distinct ways, one, as an achievement, and two, as an ongoing task (Ibid). This means that a curriculum can be seen as a final product or result in the teaching and learning arena and as a process that is continually being worked on and developed. Barnett and Coate (2005, p. 3), therefore, distinguish between “curriculum-as- designed” (an achievement) and “curriculum-in-action” (a task). They go on to claim that curricular design has been frequently understood, without hesitation, to be a task that is primarily about filling in various gaps, such as drawing up teaching schedules and filling, what is assume to be an empty space (Barnett & Coate, 2005). Instead of narrowly assuming a curriculum to be a mere task of filling in what is lacking for the sake of teaching and learning, they suggest that designing curricula should be accepted as designing spaces and activities that could be imagined as those that would most likely generate vigour, potential and

inspiration amongst students to triply engage with the elements of knowing, acting and being (Ibid). Curriculum design, then, has much to do with the intention of the curriculum designers (Ibid). Designing curricula, in other words, should take into account how teaching and

learning is intended to most effectively engage students with these aspects of knowing, acting and being. Barnett (2000) and Barnett and Coate (2005) seem to put forward that higher education curricula, through these three-dimensional elements, is about responding to the increasing complexity and uncertainty that has arrived so emphatically in the twenty-first century. Other authors, such as Stark and Lattuca (1997) share a different take on higher education curricula. They take a more organisational and categorical approach to curricula.

Stark and Lattuca (1997) assert that attempting to find a proper definition for what a curriculum remains an endeavour that has been proven to be a challenging one. Too often, higher education curricula have commonly and readily been assumed to only consist of a set of courses or experiences that are needed to complete a higher education qualification (Stark

& Lattuca, 1997). They present the view that a curriculum in higher education should be seen as an academic plan. Stark and Lattuca (1997) believe that an academic plan takes into account that a curriculum has a deliberate planning process which includes planning around

Disciplinarity or interdisciplinarity?

Disciplinarity or interdisciplinarity?

An analysis of the organization of knowledge in an environmental and development

economics Master programme

Saundre Lasca McConney

Master Thesis

Department of Educational Research UNIVERSITETET I OSLO

Disciplinarity or interdisciplinarity? An

analysis of the organization of knowledge in an environmental and development

economics Master programme

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

1.1 A changing context for higher education curricula

1.1.1 Knowledge economy, globalization and Mode 2

1.1.2 Diversification, modularization and ‘creditization’ of higher education curricula

1.1.3 Modularization: a deconstruction of knowledge

1.1.4 A brief history of interdisciplinary programmes

2 Theoretical perspectives and analytical framework

2.1 Perspectives on academic knowledge

2.1.1 Disciplinary knowledge: a social perspective

2.1.2 Disciplinary knowledge: an epistemological perspective

2.1.3 Interdisciplinary knowledge

2.2 Perspectives on higher education curricula